Allowed

Abdul Salim K.C. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Aug 2020Bail Appl./4160/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed the petition for anticipatory bail filed by Abdul Salim K.C., the 6th accused in a wildlife offence case. The court held that no direct evidence existed against the applicant at the time and ordered conditional release.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted with execution of bond for Rs. 50,000 and two sureties, subject to five conditions including cooperation with investigation and surrender of passport.

Abdul Salim K.C. Vs State of Kerala — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 19TH SRAVANA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl.No.4160 OF 2020

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 531/2020 OF DISTRICT COURT& SESSIONS COURT,MANJERI

¶7

O.R. NO.5/2020 OF Akampadam Forest Station Office , Malappuram

¶8

PETITIONER/6TH ACCUSED:

¶9

ABDUL SALIM K.C. AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.HAMZA K.C., KUNNAN CHIRAKKAL HOUSE, AKAMPADAM, ERANHIMANGAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679 329.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.R.RANJITH (MANJERI)

¶11

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031.

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

C.N PRABHAKARAN,SR.P.P

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

B.A.No.4160 of 2020

¶17

-2-

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

Dated this the 10th day of August 2020

¶20

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

¶21

The applicant is the 6th accused in O.R.No.5/2020 of Akampadom Forest Station, Malappuram, for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 2(16), 9, 39, 49, 50 and 51 of the Wildlife Protection Act and Sections 3(A) and 25 of the Indian Arms Act.

¶22

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the

¶23

applicant along with seven other accused, allegedly trespassed into the Edavanna Forest Range in Nilambur North Division between the intervening days of 04.06.2020 and 05.06.2020, and shot dead a Wild Boar with a country-made

¶24

gun and shared the meat. In connection with this, another crime was registered as O.R.No.6/2020 of the same Forest

¶25

Station, wherein, the applicant herein and the other accused were accused of training dogs for hunting down wild animals, and they had also made videos of the same, and circulated. The applicant has already obtained anticipatory bail in O.R.No.6/2020.

¶26

B.A.No.4160 of 2020

¶27

-3-

¶28

He anticipates arrest in this case also and

¶29

approaches this Court seeking a pre-arrest bail, stating that the allegations against him are not true and that he is not in any way involved in the hunting of wild boar and training of dogs for that purpose. He states that he was waiting to travel to Japan for employment, and but for the pandemic situation, and lockdown, he would have gone abroad. A police clearance certificate was obtained from

¶30

the Regional Passport Office, as seen from Annexure 2, which would indicate that the applicant is not involved in any other criminal cases. The applicant states that the 1st accused is in inimically disposed towards him, that had given a false statement to the investigating officer about the applicant being involved in the crime. There was nothing to be recovered from his possession, and therefore, he seeks a pre-arrest bail and states that he is willing to co-operate with the investigation.

¶31

Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶32

The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the

¶33

offence under the Forest Act is serious and that the involvement of the applicant was revealed by the statements

¶34

B.A.No.4160 of 2020

¶35

-4-

¶36

given by the other co-accused and witnesses, and therefore,

¶37

the applicant may not be released on anticipatory bail as prayed for.

¶38

Considering the entire facts and circumstances, I find that there is no direct evidence against the applicant at present. However, the investigation is not yet complete, and there is the possibility that the investigation officer may be able to lay his hands on some evidence proving the direct involvement of the applicant in this case of hunting down the Wild Boar. As of now, there are only certain confession statements of the co-accused and witnesses, which alone may not suffice to find the accused guilty of the offence. The applicant has no criminal antecedents, apart from the other case which is referred to above. I, therefore, find no reason for any custodial interrogation of the applicant. He is willing to co-operate with the investigation, and hence entitled to the anticipatory bail sought.

¶39

In the result, the bail application is allowed and the applicant is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer within one month. And in the event of his being arrested, he shall be released on bail on the execution of

¶40

B.A.No.4160 of 2020

¶41

bond for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only), with two

¶42

solvent sureties, each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer, and on the following conditions:

¶43

(i) He shall co-operate with the investigation;

¶44

(ii) He shall not influence or intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence;

¶45

(iii) He shall appear before the investigating officer as and when called for;

¶46

(iv) He shall surrender his passport, and shall not go abroad without the permission of the jurisdictional Court; and

¶47

(v) During the bail period, he shall not get involved in any similar offences.

¶48

In case of breach of the bail conditions, the

¶49

prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation

¶50

of the bail before the jurisdictional court.

Sd/-

dkr

ASHOK MENON

JUDGE

Abdul Salim K.C. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Salim K.C. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajith @ Pathrose Vs State of Kerala

Prasanth Vs State of Kerala

Bineesh Kumar.B Vs the Inspector of Police

Nripan Vs State of Kerala

Mahesh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Anil Jacob, Vs State of Kerala